Lyft driver shoots two carjackers in Philadelphia

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

old lady new shooter

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
Messages
30,733
Just saw this video about a Lyft driver who shot two carjackers in Philadelphia. The narrator says the driver had a female passenger in the back seat. The carjackers were in another car and rear-ended the Lyft driver twice to get him to stop and get out of his car, then one of them pointed a rifle at him. He told them they can have the car but please let him get the passenger out first so they're not also doing a kidnapping. After he got the passenger out one carjacker sped away in the Lyft driver's car and the other went in the opposite direction in the car the carjackers originally arrived in. The Lyft driver shot both the carjackers through the windows / doors of the respective vehicles. At the end of the video a police officer explains what happened and seems positive toward the Lyft driver. I don't understand how this was OK given that both BGs seem to have been fleeing (= no longer threatening the Lyft driver or his passenger) at the time. Thoughts?
 
I don’t believe the the police spokesman excused it or said it was ok. I’m sure there is an investigation going on behind the scenes and everything will be presented to the prosecuting attorney. There are all kinds of things that go into a decision to prosecute. We don’t discuss those things at length here because you can’t get into a defensive gun use situation and count on public sentiment or the states attorney wanting to send a message to the criminal element by not prosecuting. That may well be what’s going on here if they are having a rash in car jackings.

Rank and file police normally cheer when a citizen removes a career criminal from the gene pool, however in this day and age doing that publicly or on social media would likely cost an officer’s job.
 
old lady new shooter said:
. Thoughts?
Click to expand...


From another source: "Police say the Lyft driver was not shot, and a rifle had been pointed at him during the encounter."


From another source: "The driver of the striking vehicle then attempted to hit the victim when he fired his weapon at the second defendant."

and from another source, in another incident, in the same city at around the same time likely involving the same car jackers and suggesting that there is more to this story:
Police: "Uber driver shot during attempted carjacking in Philadelphia"
 
Discussing these issues from media reports is always problematic. If you want to be shocked find a news story online from 50-75 years ago and then compare the information in that article with current reporting. The media doesn’t tell us much these days.

That’s why most of the conversations we have here are long on speculation and short on facts.
 
old lady new shooter said:
I don't understand how this was OK given that both BGs seem to have been fleeing (= no longer threatening the Lyft driver or his passenger) at the time. Thoughts?
Click to expand...

Following Redcon1's method and reading through several stories, it would appear that the Lyft driver shot the armed carjacker before he actually had left. So the carjacker was still present, still armed, but inside the Lyft vehicle. At that point, it was still an armed robbery in progress, sort of like a cashier shooting an armed robber at the counter after giving the armed robber the money. The threat is still present, still armed, and still a threat. The 2nd carjacker in the bump car attempted to run over the Lyft driver and made a U-turn (which means going by the Lyft driver a 2nd time) and the Lyft driver fired on him which could be construed as firing on the bump car during a 2nd attack by the bump car driver. OR, after firing on the first carjacker, the bump car accelerated toward the Lyft driver and the Lyft driver shot the bump car driver during the first pass.

But as Jeff noted, the media info is sketchy.
 
Kleanbore said:
The question would be one of whether he had been leaving.
Click to expand...

"Leaving" is ambiguous if the bad guy hasn't left. And just because somebody is "leaving" does not mean that they are not a threat.

Kleanbore said:
Is shooting at a driver an effective and reasonable means of defense?
Click to expand...

We are talking about the 2nd carjacker that tried to run over the Lyft driver. The carjacker certainly didn't make a 3rd pass. Also, the police seem to do it with some regularity and with accepted justification when bad guys use their cars as weapons against the cops and do have some success in stopping said aggressive behavior. So yeah, shooting at a person trying to run you down with a vehicle most certainly can be an effective and reasonable means of defense.
https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/c...g-south-charlotte/5IO2L5OAW5DDHJTV7KU4C4C73E/
https://www.wreg.com/news/local/tbi...volved-shooting-at-memphis-apartment-complex/

 
Double Naught Spy said:
"Leaving" is ambiguous if the bad guy hasn't left.
Click to expand...
"Ambiguous" will not support a reasonable belief that an imminent danger exists.
Double Naught Spy said:
So yeah, shooting at a person trying to run you down with a vehicle most certainly can be an effective and reasonable means of defense.
Click to expand...
Better to get out of the way than to put a moving vehicle out of control.
 
shoot a few more and maybe they will stop trying to steal other peoples property. why do they think it will not turn bad for them. these rats are not stealing to feed their children, but to feed their drug habit most of the time.
 
eastbank said:
shoot a few more and maybe they will stop trying to steal other peoples property. why do they think it will not turn bad for them. these rats are not stealing to feed their children, but to feed their drug habit most of the time.
Click to expand...
It’s not that simple. Folks who do this kinda thing generally don’t care if they live or die. Some do but a lot don’t.
 
Several things. First the Fox reporter said the carjacker had an automatic rifle. In this day and seg I fail to understand what reporters cannot seem to understand the classification of rifles. Second, other than we know the two perps ended up as prisoners in the hospital we really have no reliable facts to evaluate. I live 17 likes south of Philly, and this is a perfect example of why I do mt best to never go there b
 
redcon1 said:
It probably beats throwing yourself at his bumper.
Click to expand...

Or blowing a whistle like the Chicago alderwoman urges. Sounds like these criminals had the misfortune of attempting to rob a Lyft driver who possessed the ability and willingness to fight back. Refusing to be a victim can really ruin a criminal's day.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
Following Redcon1's method and reading through several stories, it would appear that the Lyft driver shot the armed carjacker before he actually had left. So the carjacker was still present, still armed, but inside the Lyft vehicle. At that point, it was still an armed robbery in progress, sort of like a cashier shooting an armed robber at the counter after giving the armed robber the money. The threat is still present, still armed, and still a threat. The 2nd carjacker in the bump car attempted to run over the Lyft driver and made a U-turn (which means going by the Lyft driver a 2nd time) and the Lyft driver fired on him which could be construed as firing on the bump car during a 2nd attack by the bump car driver. OR, after firing on the first carjacker, the bump car accelerated toward the Lyft driver and the Lyft driver shot the bump car driver during the first pass.

But as Jeff noted, the media info is sketchy.
Click to expand...
Thanks for all the additional details. :)
 
1942bull said:
Several things. First the Fox reporter said the carjacker had an automatic rifle. In this day and seg I fail to understand what reporters cannot seem to understand the classification of rifles. Second, other than we know the two perps ended up as prisoners in the hospital we really have no reliable facts to evaluate. I live 17 likes south of Philly, and this is a perfect example of why I do mt best to never go there b
Click to expand...
They are having an epidemic of carjackings. Look how brazen this one was, broad daylight in an area with multiple witnesses right there.
 
Choctaw said:
Or blowing a whistle like the Chicago alderwoman urges. Sounds like these criminals had the misfortune of attempting to rob a Lyft driver who possessed the ability and willingness to fight back. Refusing to be a victim can really ruin a criminal's day.
Click to expand...
Lyft driver also has a carry permit, I forgot to mention that.

I was impressed to hear that he calmly persuaded the carjackers to let him take the passenger out of the back seat.
 
Kleanbore said:
"Ambiguous" will not support a reasonable belief that an imminent danger exists.
Click to expand...

Well, plenty of witnesses and the Lyft driver wasn't arrested. We'll see.

Kleanbore said:
Better to get out of the way than to put a moving vehicle out of control.
Click to expand...

And the Lyft driver did and hit his target.
 
old lady new shooter said:
They are having an epidemic of carjackings. Look how brazen this one was, broad daylight in an area with multiple witnesses right there.
Click to expand...
They seem to be up everywhere. Because it is usually not reported as a specific crime, there are not good data on it. I now carry a firearm that I can access with my left hand while strapped in.

It is for self preservation. If they take the car, I will not use the gun.

old lady new shooter said:
Lyft driver also has a carry permit, I forgot to mention that.
Click to expand...
He did have, anyway.
 
Double Naught Spy said:
Great, you have stats on this? If you do, please do share.
Click to expand...
It's physics.

Without a driver, a moving car goes where it is going to go and hits what it is going to hit. If it is heading toward a shooter, it will hit the shooter. If it is not, why shoot?

We have had threads on this.
 
One can envision scenarios where a committed driver repeatedly trying to run someone down is best shot. He or she will likely crash the vehicle and unable to make additional attempts at slamming into people.
 
There is a reason most police departments have policies against shooting at people in moving vehicles. That reason is that unless your backup gun is a 90mm recoiless rifle in an ankle rig, you aren’t carrying anything that will reliably stop a vehicle.

If you disable the driver the most likely outcome is the creation of a 2500 pound or more unguided missile. Even if you are backed against a wall in a position where you can’t get out of the way the best you can hope for is that the driver hits the brakes as he bleeds out, otherwise all you get is the satisfaction of knowing you probably took the driver into the next world with you.

There are very few situations where shooting at the driver of a moving vehicle would be the best choice. Maybe if you knew the vehicle was a VBIED and you needed to stop it before it got somewhere where it would cause a mass casualty event it would be a good idea to try to incapacitate the driver. While there are places in the world where that is a likely threat, it’s not really a threat that we will encounter on the mean streets in the USA.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
THINK First!
Replies
24
Views
1K
JohnKSa
JohnKSa
C
  • Locked
Preemptive Carjacking Strike!
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Jaenak
J
C
  • Locked
Wow!!!!!
Replies
16
Views
2K
Ragnar Danneskjold
R
Phaedrus/69
Man killed attempting to stop a carjacking
2
Replies
44
Views
1K
The Night Rider
The Night Rider
D
  • Locked
Car defense
Replies
17
Views
750
gunsmith
G
Back
Top